Hi Masami, On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 00:09, Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hirama...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > 2022年3月16日(水) 12:13 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > > > Hi Masami, > > > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 02:36, Masami Hiramatsu > > <masami.hirama...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > 2022年3月15日(火) 14:04 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > > > > > > > Hi Masami, > > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 18:40, Masami Hiramatsu > > > > <masami.hirama...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > 2022年3月15日(火) 3:24 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, well 'reset by a user' presumably starts the board up and > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > runs some code to do the update in U-Boot? Is that right? If > > > > > > > > so, we > > > > > > > > just need to trigger that update from the test. We don't need > > > > > > > > to test > > > > > > > > the actual reset, at least not with sandbox. As I said, we need > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > write the code so that it is easy to test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, we already have that command, "efidebug capsule > > > > > > > disk-update" > > > > > > > which kicks the capsule update code even without the 'reset by a > > > > > > > user'. So we can just kick this command for checking whether the > > > > > > > U-Boot UEFI code correctly find the capsule file from ESP which > > > > > > > specified by UEFI vars. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the 'capsule update on-disk' feature is also expected > > > > > > > (and > > > > > > > defined in the spec?) to run when the UEFI subsystem is > > > > > > > initialized. > > > > > > > This behavior will not be tested if we skip the 'reset by a > > > > > > > user'. I > > > > > > > guess Takahiro's current test case tries to check it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'UEFI subsystem is intialised' is a problem, actually, since if > > > > > > it > > > > > > were better integrated into driver model, it would not have separate > > > > > > structures or they would be present and enabled when driver model > > > > > > is. > > > > > > I hope that it can be fixed and Takahiro's series is a start in that > > > > > > direction. > > > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > > > > > > But as to a test that an update is called when UEFI starts, that > > > > > > seems > > > > > > like a single line of code. Sure it is nice to test it, but it is > > > > > > much > > > > > > more important to test the installation of the update and the > > > > > > execution of the update. I suppose another way to test that is to > > > > > > shut down the UEFI subsystem and start it up? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, currently we call do_reset() after install the capsule file. > > > > > (This reset can be avoided if we replace it with > > > > > sysreset_walk_halt(SYSRESET_COLD) as you said, right?) > > > > > > > > > > Here is how I tested it on my machine; > > > > > > > > > > > usb start > > > > > > fatload usb 0 $kernel_addr_r test.cap > > > > > > fatwrite mmc 0 $fileaddr EFI/UpdateCapsule/test.cap $filesize > > > > > > efidebug capsule disk-update > > > > > (run install process and reboot the machine) > > > > > > > > > > So, if we can avoid the last reset, we can test the below without > > > > > reset on sandbox (depends on scenarios). > > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk can find the capsule file > > > > > from ESP specified by the BOOTXXXX EFI variable. > > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk writes the firmware > > > > > correctly to the storage which specified by DFU. > > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk success if the capsule image > > > > > type is supported. > > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk fails if the capsule image > > > > > type is not supported. > > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk will reboot after update > > > > > even if the update is failed. > > > > > > > > > > The only spec we can not test is > > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk is kicked when the UEFI is > > > > > initialized. > > > > > > > > Even that could be tested, by installing an update and then initing > > > > UEFI? > > > > > > yeah, if the UEFI is not initialized yet, we can run some UEFI related > > > command (e.g. printenv -e) instead of efidebug capsule... to execute > > > the capsule update on disk. > > > But anyway, this is only available at the first time. We need a way to > > > reset UEFI subsystem without system reset. > > > > Yes. It is certainly possible, but I'm not sure how easy it is. > > Perhaps just drop all the EFI data structures and run the EFI init > > again? We have something similar with driver model. See > > dm_test_pre_run() > > EFI has the ExitBootServices call, but I'm not sure it is actually > clear all resources. Maybe we need to check what resources are > released by the ExitBootServices. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway we should design subsystems so they are easy to test. > > > > > > > > > > Here I guess you mean the unit test, not system test, am I correct? > > > > > > > > Yes. Easy testing is so important for developer productivity and > > > > happiness. It is fine to have large system/functional tests as a fall > > > > back or catch-all, but they tend to test the happy path only. When > > > > they fail, they are hard to debug because they cover such as large > > > > area of the code and they often have complex setup requirements so are > > > > hard to run manually. > > > > > > > > My hope is that all the functionality should be covered by unit tests > > > > or integration tests, so that system/functional almost never fail. > > > > > > My another question is how small is the granularity of the unit test. > > > As I showed, the UEFI capsule update needs to prepare a capsule file > > > installed in the storage. > > > That seems to be very system-level. But you think that is still be a unit > > > test? > > > (I expected that the 'Unit test' is something like KUnit in Linux) > > > > Well I am using your terminology here. Technically many of the U-Boot > > tests (executed by 'ut' command) are not really unit tests. They bring > > in a lot of code and run one test case using it. > > OK. > > > > > For example, one of the tests brings up the USB subsystem, including a > > fake USB stick, then checks it can read data from the stick, using the > > USB stack. > > So the fake USB stick data is generated in the build process? > If so, we also can build a fake ESP master image which already > includes a capsule file. > > > Another one writes some things to the emulated display and then checks > > that the correct pixels are there. > > > > Perhaps a better name would be integration test. But the point is that > > we can run these tests very, very quickly and (setup aside) without > > outside influence, or without restarting the executable, etc. > > OK. > BTW, as you said above, when we run such integration test for EFI > which includes to run sysreset, before that sandbox will switch the > sysreset driver for resetting EFI to avoid restarting it?
Yes. The UEFI update seems quite monolithic from what I am hearing. Could it be split into a few separate U-Boot commands, liike: - efi update prepare (set up the update somewhere) - efi update exec (do the update) Regards, SImon